350x18 or 400x18

[Mailo]

Hi friends, im looking for some tires to my GS 400 i want to give to it an old school look, like old school racing bike.

i was searching for 400x18 tires but i haven't found any ( in Argentina ) i only found 350x18

do you have any photos of this sizes so i can compare? i think 350 size is to thin, but i wanna see.

greetings!

 

[Steve]

Do you also have tires available with the metric sizing?

If so, look for 100/90-18 or 110/90-18.

The stock size on the rear was, indeed, 3.50 x 18 which would be a 90/90-18,
but you can go up to a 100 easily, might have to check clearances on the 110.

.

 

[Mailo]

Do you also have tires available with the metric sizing?

If so, look for 100/90-18 or 110/90-18.

The stock size on the rear was, indeed, 3.50 x 18 which would be a 90/90-18,
but you can go up to a 100 easily, might have to check clearances on the 110.

.

Yes sorry, o also found 100/90-18, whats the equivalent in inches?

i think its too thin for the bike too.

if you have pictures of bikes with that sizes post it please

 

[rudeman]

100mm is about 3.94 inches

25.4mm = 1 inch

 

[Mailo]

100mm is about 3.94 inches

25.4mm = 1 inch

yes but i think the metrical and imperial size measures are taken with differently considerations, am i wrong?

 

[Steve]

yes but i think the metrical and imperial size measures are taken with differently considerations, am i wrong?

Not sure what you mean there, but 3.50 inches is 88.9mm, so a 90 tire would be the most-direct fit.

Many (most?) of the inch-spec tires were a 100 cross-section, most of the modern tires are a 90, so to keep the original height of the original tire, going up one size to a 100/90-18 would be appropriate.

As others have already pointed out, the 100mm width is 3.94 inches, making it the most-direct replacement for the 4.00.
Going up one size for that one would put you at a 110/90-18.

Don't worry about the tire being "too skinny". The tires "back then" operated close to the limits of what the frame could handle, and today's tires are a LOT better, so tires are not going to be your limiting factor, despite their "skinnyness".

.

 

[lurch12_2000]

I would go with either the 100/90-18(3.50 range) or 110/90-18(3.75 range) on the rear and stay away from old school 3.50-18 sizes. You'll get better speed ratings, better tread design and cheaper price. You won't get that old school crappy tread design look though. Form always follows function for me especially with that GS400, which is capable of stuff beyong the old tire designs.

 

[Mailo]

Not sure what you mean there, but 3.50 inches is 88.9mm, so a 90 tire would be the most-direct fit.

Many (most?) of the inch-spec tires were a 100 cross-section, most of the modern tires are a 90, so to keep the original height of the original tire, going up one size to a 100/90-18 would be appropriate.

As others have already pointed out, the 100mm width is 3.94 inches, making it the most-direct replacement for the 4.00.
Going up one size for that one would put you at a 110/90-18.

Don't worry about the tire being "too skinny". The tires "back then" operated close to the limits of what the frame could handle, and today's tires are a LOT better, so tires are not going to be your limiting factor, despite their "skinnyness".

.

sorry my english is kinda limited

i meant that for example 110mm tire isn't a 4.33 inch tire, becouse the sizes in both measurement systems aren't taken in the same places of the tire. i tought the conversion of tires wasnt lineal like 1inch=25,4mm. im wrong?


i looked this tires

http://articulo.mercadolibre.com.ar...cheng-shin-tire-10090x18-caferacer-bobber-_JM

http://articulo.mercadolibre.com.ar...-dunlop-gold-seal-f11-10090x18-cafe-racer-_JM

http://articulo.mercadolibre.com.ar...tzeler-350-x-18-me-77-custom-en-fas-motos-_JM

could you give me opinions?

i like the tires "fat" becouse of the stetic factor

so you guy say that the conversion of the tire size from mm to inches is direct?

100 mm --> 3.94 in?

 

[Steve]

Don't worry, your "limited" English is better than some of the Americans on here.

Yes, conversion is pretty much linear, but the aspect ratio of the tires has changed.
With the older (inch-sized) tires, they were as tall from the bead to the outside of the tread as they were wide across the sidewalls. The height of the tire (bead to tread) was 100% of the width.


With the newer tires (usually metric-sized), they are still measured across the sidewalls, but they are only 90% as high from bead to tread.

I am guessing that "stetic" means "aesthetic" or "visual". In other words, you like the way they look.
Sorry to say, but if you like "fat" tires, you will have to get wheels that are much wider to properly support them, but then you will probably be running into clearance issues on the swingarm, too.

Although fat tires might give the illusion of more rubber on the road, if you pinch them on to the stock rims, they will be pinched into a tighter radius, actually giving you less rubber on the road. Besides, if you really know how to ride the bike, newer skinny tires will out-perform most of the other riders on the road. When you stop and the other riders finally catch up to you, you will appear to be a hero when they point to your skinny tires and say "you were riding like that on those???"

.

 

[Mailo]

Thanks Steve

Currently im running 130/70 18 rear and 300x18 on front, but are like "racing" tires, they don't match with the old school look.


to make it clear 100/90 18 is wider than 350x18?

i would like to see some pictures of bikes with:

100/90 18
350x18


can someone find some photos for me?

 

[Big T]

Actual old racers had really skinny tires, like 3.00 front and 3.50 rear

You must be talking about Brat style or some such custom look

Those bikes handle like ****, I'd never ride one again

 

[Steve]

... to make it clear 100/90 18 is wider than 350x18?

Go back, look in post #6. You will see that a 3.50 tire is 88.9 mm wide, so yes, 100 mm is wider than 89 mm.

Sorry, don't have any pictures, but the difference between those tires and the stock tires is so small, it will not show in generic pictures. You can look up that model at Suzukicycles.org. Look in the left column for the GS series, then scroll down to look for your particular model.

.

 

[Mailo]

Go back, look in post #6. You will see that a 3.50 tire is 88.9 mm wide, so yes, 100 mm is wider than 89 mm.

Sorry, don't have any pictures, but the difference between those tires and the stock tires is so small, it will not show in generic pictures. You can look up that model at Suzukicycles.org. Look in the left column for the GS series, then scroll down to look for your particular model.

.

Steve, the front tire of the motorcycle of this picture is 400x18 that according you guys its "simillar" to 100/90 18

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net...=f1ade5aa18ab26a2c4577fb5c08a57c3&oe=54D04300

and they look a looot wider than the stock, not only look wider than the stock rear (350x18)

 

[Steve]

Yes, that just might be a 4.00, but it's also apparently mounted on a stock (1.60) rim, which is waaayyy too small.

It looks larger on the front because you can see so much of it. It is not hidden like the back wheel.

If you want fat tires, put them on. When you decide you don't like how they handle, put the proper size on.

.

 

[Mailo]

Yes, that just might be a 4.00, but it's also apparently mounted on a stock (1.60) rim, which is waaayyy too small.

It looks larger on the front because you can see so much of it. It is not hidden like the back wheel.

If you want fat tires, put them on. When you decide you don't like how they handle, put the proper size on.

.

Thanks for your help Steve, im undecided of which size buy because im buying them on the web so i can't see them phisically and figure which one i want